Is it even worth it?

Meh, who knows. I'd have to play games to find out what my range is, but I'm lazy.

I assume 2300 blitz would be difficult, but something that I could do in a few weeks, and 23xx bullet would be easy to maintain... right now my bullet is too high. I assume 2200 rapid would be difficult, but I've never actually tried in rapid (like... ever, on any account) so it's hard to know... because of cheating it's not very appealing to me.

I dunno, depends on what your weak areas are and what you've done to improve in the past... if you're stuck at a rating it's best to work on weak areas and to try something different... so a big clue is if you think to yourself _____ type of position or _____ type of study is boring, it means you've probably been avoiding it, and it's outside of your comfort zone... so that's probably a way to improve.

In general, for higher rated players, I like the idea of building databases. So if you see a GM game with a cool attack, SAVE IT SOMEHOW and write a few sentences about why you like it or why it's instructive. It could be bookmarking a link, or if you have chessbase or some database saving the .pgn. In the past I've freakin' taken screenshots of position and saved them... anyway, over time you'll have folders that grow... a mistakes folder, a rook endgame folder, a French defense folder, whatever. From time to time review all the material in a folder. Throw out stuff that's not so good, and keep adding stuff you think is interesting.

Also Yusupov's build, boost, evolve, books are high quality. I really like them. Maybe get the green ones (those are the hardest 3, and are aimed at players around FIDE 1900-2100 IIRC).

You can google the question... and it will tell you "if I recall correctly"

I like to use them as analysis / time management exercises, I set a time limit of 5 or 10 minutes, calculate, write down my answer, then play over the solution.

To learn a specific topic, yeah, it's better to buy a book on that topic.

Oh, and importantly I don't care if I completely get something wrong lol. Some of his examples are really hard... the point isn't that I get things right or wrong, the point is I try my best and then play over the solution... and like I was saying before I save ones that I think are very instructive and I review them again later.

I mean, I can pass almost all the green book ones (sometimes just barely, like by one point, but I pass)... but even if I fail I don't care... that's not the point of working through the books (and probably more of a gimmick he added later).

That's not how he tells you to use the book lol. Read the first few pages

You're supposed to set it up on a real board (not digital) and without moving the pieces try to solve it for 5 minutes.

After that, if you haven't solved it, then you get 10 more minutes and this time you're allowed to move pieces around, but he says to be sure to explore different ideas, don't just look at the lines you already calculated.

My idea of writing down your answer is something I took from a different book (maybe Yusupov says to do it too, I forgot) but it helps you know what you saw and what you didn't when you go over the solution later.

---

Spending 30 minutes on a position isn't necessarily bad... but only if there are things to calculate (if it's a tactical position)... but at that point you're mostly training visualization. If you're not interested in training visualization, then it's much better to spend, for example all that extra time looking over the solution and maybe putting it into an engine to explore anything else you had a question about, and then taking notes... 10 minutes of solving + 20 minutes of all that other stuff would be much more useful than 30 minutes of calculating in circles.

Don't think of it like a test Maybe that's why you're trying so hard... I totally get it, but that's not an efficient way to learn. Fail a lot and then learn from the failure, that's how learning works

If someone asked you 24 hours later "what's something you learned from the last chapter" and "what was an interesting position in the last chapter" ideally you would be able to answer them... maybe it was too boring or too hard and you can't, but yeah, that's the sort of thing that indicates learning, not artificial points

Unless you're determined to make chess a career then take it for what it is, a game, something yo have fun and enjoy, you do not have to be a fantastic player. Like when you play any other board game, chess is no different, you do not have to do lessons for these other games, you just play and enjoy yourself, do the lessons and practice if it is something you enjoy 😊

Your life is meaningful! You should live yourself NOW

If you suck at games, just don't play them. Mic drop.

If one is horribly depressed, suicide often is thought about. I would suggest professional counseling by all means and please stop trying to learn and play games as this will drive you further down to a bad place.

Yes agreed that if you are suffering from depression, please seek counseling!
OP is now ~1000 rapid...
But ofc, don't get caught up in results.

You guys, this isn't funny. Please, stop.

See these posts everyday. Truth is, contrary to advice on here by people who are cognitively hardwired to learn concepts in chess quickly, chess isn't for everyone.

I have a lot of friends who play chess, and we have all been practicing together as adults. Same material and tactics etc.

I noticed myself learning much faster than some of them, and some others still learned way faster than me.

I know people who practise regularly but have been stuck at the same rating for like a decade.

I think anyone can get to 1200. But beyond that there are people who simply can't apply the concepts consistently.

Beyond 1500 it gets even harder still. 2000+ I'd say all have at least a bit of a natural talent/gift.

Board Vision, avoidin Blundering pieces and tactical strategy are the main factors in getting to 1000+++